edition.cnn.com
Biden Declares Equal Rights Amendment Ratified Amidst Legal Uncertainty
President Biden declared the Equal Rights Amendment ratified on Friday, despite legal challenges and the Archivist's refusal, aiming to enshrine equal rights for women in the Constitution.
- What are the immediate consequences of President Biden's declaration that the Equal Rights Amendment is ratified?
- President Biden declared the Equal Rights Amendment ratified, despite pending legal challenges and the Archivist's refusal to certify it. This action, taken in his final days in office, aims to enshrine equal rights for women in the Constitution, potentially impacting reproductive rights.
- What are the potential long-term implications of Biden's action on the interpretation and process of constitutional amendments?
- The courts will ultimately decide the legality of Biden's action, impacting women's rights and the power of presidential actions during a transition. This could set a precedent for future attempts to amend the Constitution, influencing future political battles over constitutional amendments.
- What are the legal and procedural challenges to Biden's declaration, and what is the role of the Archivist of the United States?
- Biden's declaration is based on the American Bar Association's view that no ratification deadline existed. However, five states rescinded their approval, and the Justice Department previously stated that deadlines were enforceable, highlighting a significant legal conflict.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article frames Biden's action as a last-minute, potentially controversial move with uncertain consequences, highlighting the legal challenges and objections from experts. This framing emphasizes the potential downsides and challenges rather than the potential positive impacts of ratifying the ERA, such as the advancement of women's rights. The headline itself, if it reflects the tone of the article, would contribute to this framing.
Language Bias
The language used is largely neutral, but phrases such as "last-minute move," "swift legal challenges," and "extremely unclear" carry negative connotations, suggesting uncertainty and potential failure. Using more neutral language like "recent action," "anticipated legal review," and "uncertain next steps" would improve objectivity.
Bias by Omission
The article omits discussion of legal arguments supporting the validity of the ERA ratification, focusing primarily on arguments against it. It also doesn't delve into the potential long-term political consequences of Biden's action, beyond mentioning potential legal challenges. The lack of counterarguments to the Brennan Center's claims weakens the analysis.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a false dichotomy by framing the situation as a simple 'ratified or not' scenario, neglecting the complex legal and procedural questions surrounding the ERA's ratification after decades of inaction and rescissions by some states. The complexities of constitutional interpretation and the differing legal opinions are oversimplified.
Gender Bias
The article focuses on the political implications of the ERA ratification, rather than on the historical context of the struggle for women's rights, or the potential impact on women's lives. While it mentions the ERA's goal of enshrining equal rights for women, the focus remains largely on the political maneuverings and legal challenges surrounding the ratification. The piece would benefit from greater focus on the experiences of women.
Sustainable Development Goals
The announcement regarding the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) directly aims to advance gender equality by enshrining equal rights for women in the Constitution. While the legal challenges are significant, the intention and potential impact are clearly aligned with SDG 5 (Gender Equality) and its targets to achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls.